Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add t1-smartswitch topo support #14595

Merged
merged 111 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024
Merged

Add t1-smartswitch topo support #14595

merged 111 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024

Conversation

zjswhhh
Copy link
Contributor

@zjswhhh zjswhhh commented Sep 15, 2024

Description of PR

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

This PR is to add t1-smartswitch support.

  1. add a t1-smartswich definition
  2. add extra step start_dpu_vm to create sonic-vs neighbor to mimic DPUs
  3. update vm_topology to bind DPUs interfaces to the bridges too
  4. update annouce_route modules to create exabgp processes on PTF for DPU neighbors too. Refer testbed routing for details.
  5. update topo_facts and config_sonic_basedon_testbed modules to update gen-mg logics

sign-off: Jing Zhang [email protected]

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • Test case(new/improvement)

Back port request

  • 202012
  • 202205
  • 202305
  • 202311
  • 202405

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

How did you do it?

How did you verify/test it?

Deployed a t1-smartswitch testbed on my dev host.

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

@zjswhhh zjswhhh marked this pull request as ready for review September 27, 2024 17:26
@zjswhhh zjswhhh changed the title [Draft] Add t1-dpu topo support [Draft] Add t1-smartswitch topo support Sep 27, 2024
@zjswhhh zjswhhh changed the title [Draft] Add t1-smartswitch topo support Add t1-smartswitch topo support Sep 27, 2024
@zjswhhh zjswhhh requested a review from yxieca as a code owner October 2, 2024 01:08
zjswhhh and others added 17 commits November 4, 2024 23:38
Description of PR
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
There has been an issue that missing exit in the FRR template that caused nht config is missed in the FRR config when vrf is configurated. After fixing the issue in sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#19587, add a new case to verify the 'ip nht resolve-via-default' should be present in FRR config whether vrf is configurated.
…net#15457)

What is the motivation for this PR?
Currently we are using conditional mark to add marker, then use pytest hook to redirect testutils.verify function to a function always return True to skip traffic test. With this change, the skip_traffic_test fixture is no longer needed in test cases, streamlining the test code and improving clarity.

How did you do it?
Remove skip_traffic_test fixture in sub_port_interfaces tests

How did you verify/test it?
What is the motivation for this PR?
Currently we are using conditional mark to add marker, then use pytest hook to redirect testutils.verify function to a function always return True to skip traffic test. With this change, the skip_traffic_test fixture is no longer needed in test cases, streamlining the test code and improving clarity.

How did you do it?
Remove skip_traffic_test fixture in ip tests

How did you verify/test it?
sonic-net#15497)

* enhance elastictest template, use bash script instead of azcli task, improve and fix azlogin and get token when requesting APIs
* Directly specify the value of MGMT_BRANCH as master. Because dynamic assignment does not take effect immediately for the conditional statement of pipeline yaml, the expected value of MGMT_BRANCH cannot be obtained, and the locally updated testplan.py cannot be used.

Signed-off-by: Chun'ang Li <[email protected]>
…t#15017)

* skip route_flow_counter TCs on 8122 platforms

* correcting conditional mark sort for test_route_flow_counter.py
* Fix replace ingress_lossless_pool

* Add log

* Fix log message.
@zjswhhh
Copy link
Contributor Author

zjswhhh commented Nov 21, 2024

Hi @wangxin -can you please help review?

@ganglyu
Copy link
Contributor

ganglyu commented Nov 26, 2024

Is this topology used exclusively for KVM? For t1, we have various topologies such as t1-4-lag, t1-8-lag, etc. Which 11 topology is supported by this t1-smartswitch?

@zjswhhh
Copy link
Contributor Author

zjswhhh commented Dec 2, 2024

Is this topology used exclusively for KVM? For t1, we have various topologies such as t1-4-lag, t1-8-lag, etc. Which 11 topology is supported by this t1-smartswitch?

Hi @ganglyu - this is currently supporting virtual testbed only. And lag is not supported by sonic-vpp (the kvm image).

Physical testbed setup is in progress, and this is actually a good question that whether we should distinguish smartSwitch T1s with other T1 topo. We can discuss offline, but it might be out of scope of this PR.

@zjswhhh
Copy link
Contributor Author

zjswhhh commented Dec 3, 2024

Hi @yxieca - can you help merge please?

@yxieca yxieca merged commit 7fb6741 into sonic-net:master Dec 3, 2024
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.